2012 Pa. Super. 21 - Commonwealth v. Hoppert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[o]ur standard of review in addressing a challenge to the denial of a suppression motion is limited to determining whether the suppression court’s factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. Because the Commonwealth prevailed before the suppression court, we may consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a whole. Where the suppression court’s factual findings are supported by the record, we are bound by these findings and may reverse only if the court’s legal conclusions are erroneous. Where, as here, the appeal of the determination of the suppression court turns on allegations of legal error, the suppression court’s legal conclusions are not binding on an appellate court, whose duty it is to determine if the suppression court properly applied the law to the facts. Thus, the conclusions of law of the courts below are subject to our plenary review.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2012 Pa. Super. 118 - Commonwealth v. McAdoo · Commonwealth v. Raglin

2. “[a]ge of the information supporting a warrant application is a factor in determining probable cause.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 114 - Commonwealth v. Leed · Commonwealth v. Green

3. “Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the affiant's knowledge and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that a search should be conducted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 114 - Commonwealth v. Leed